Books that refute anarchocalpitalism

[Anonymous No.16602606]

I've been watching youtube videos and conferences about anarchocapitalism/minarquism and even though I can clearly tell how those ideas are unfeasible or would bring us to a disastrous society, I don't think I can really articulate a proper critique.
What are some books that show the inherent problems/contradictions of this ideaology?
Either far left books,left anarchism, from a classical liberal point of view or from a more authoritaria right wing approach are all right, as long as they present a proper critique.
On the other hand books that could convince me of the viability of this system are also welcome.

[Anonymous No.16602614]

>>16602606
Books? Common sense should do the trick.

[Anonymous No.16602622]

Anarcho-anything is pure bullshit - that should be enough.

[Anonymous No.16602626]

>>16602606
Guns Germs and Steel unironically

[Anonymous No.16602631]

>>16602606
>books about [political topic I want to discuss, but not on /po/]

[Anonymous No.16602633]

>>16602606
his existence did more to refute lolbertarians than any book

[Anonymous No.16602638]

Externalities

[Anonymous No.16602646]

>>16602614
>>16602631
I just want books with a good, articulate analysis on a topic.

[Anonymous No.16602658]

Any book that refutes communism or any other anarchic society.

[Anonymous No.16602700]

>>16602614
fpbp

[Anonymous No.16602727]

>>16602606
1844 manuscripts do away with the idea that capitalism entails freedom pretty neatly

[Anonymous No.16602734]

>>16602606
Anarchist FAQ for a far left critique
Anarchy, State and Utopia for a minarchist critique

[Anonymous No.16602753]

>>16602606
Just take the libertarianpill
Read Hoppe's Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis and you'll see that libleft and libright thought shares more affinity than you'd otherwise think

[Anonymous No.16602815]

>>16602753
cringe

[Anonymous No.16602819]

>>16602606
There’s no such thing as ancap, it’s just capitalism.

[Anonymous No.16602850]

>>16602753
just shut the fuck up, nigger

[Anonymous No.16602861]

>>16602606
lol anarchism is the wet dream of people who don't like atheists ' fascism

[Anonymous No.16602873]

>>16602753
>lib unity meme
No.

[Anonymous No.16602886]

>>16602606
Capitalism and communism are second layer analysis. It does not matter who "wins" because capitalism naturally leads to a single all powerful corporate monopoly and communism leads to a single all powerful political organ. The end result is the same, a monopoly of power and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

[Anonymous No.16602892]

>>16602886
In fact as grim as it sounds I think the sorting of the population into a small (and ever smaller and more powerful) elite and massess of slaves is the natural process of history. It is only temporarily disrupted by plagues and revolutions that for a short while produce a short-lived change before the process consolidates into a new elite and slavery.

[Anonymous No.16603219]

>>16602614
based

[Anonymous No.16603260]

>>16602886
95 IQ take

[Anonymous No.16603268]

>>16602606
just read milton friedman desu, when articulating the sides of any state vs liberty issue in economics he always comes down on the statist side for pragmatic reasons despite pretending to be a liberal.

[Anonymous No.16603288]

>>16602606
>I've been watching youtube videos
ok so it's safe to say you're probably encountering the most infantile ideas... a recurring theme is that you can't do particular things because it violates supposed "natural rights", if you want an equally juvenile book attacking that a good "might is right" attack is "The Myth of Natural Rights" by L.A. Rollins. Of course there's more respectable utilitarian and other lines of attack but that's probably won't make them as angry.

If you blow up any natural right to property (which of course is the most beloved right) they might still claim it's good on other grounds but at least they're not invoking supernatural forces. That's technical and not moral... so you could make a case for collective or radical direct individualist forms of expropriation such as killing Bill Gates and taking all his stuff.

A weird governmental enforced institution many lolberts loved was the gold standard... they claim to hate price fixing but (they may not put it so bluntly but it is how it is) want to criminalize anything calling itself money that doesn't have its price fixed against gold. Ask how private fiat crypto tokens might probelmatize trying to enforce full reserve gold banking schemes when you're hoping random juries of boobs will enforce everything.

[Anonymous No.16603293]

Friendly reminder AnCucks that without the Federal Government there would be no Duck Ramps.

We need Taxation and a strong Federal Government to make people pay their taxes to make sure that more Duck Ramps will be created.

[Anonymous No.16603306]

>>16602850
>>16602815
>>16602873
and this is why you ancoms have literally never accomplished anything other than a collectively owned bookstore or coffee shop while we've made 3D printed guns and unconfiscatable currency

[Anonymous No.16603800]

>>16603306
>you ancoms
Keep staring at political compass memes, midwit.

[Anonymous No.16603869]

>>16602606
Robert Nozick explains why a nightwatchman-state, at the very least, is inevitable in Anarchy, State, and Utopia. It's not a critique of minarchism.

The best, most straightforward economic argument against it is >>16602638

[Anonymous No.16604588]

R.I.P OP

[Anonymous No.16604599]

>>16603268

[Anonymous No.16604618]

>>16602606
Just read the terms of the health and dental insurance you get through your employer, that should do it.

[Anonymous No.16604670]

>>16602873
>take the libertarianpill
>lib unity
doesnt add up
just read the paper it's a very short read and its straight to the point, instead of embarrassing yourself by making ignorant inferences

[Anonymous No.16604673]

>>16602606

Why would you need a book to refute such a stupid view? The core tenet is that humans who are given plenty of food and houses and whatever else are automatically elevated to the status of angels and that all forms of managing naughty behavior are only necessary when you have failed to arrange the life of a person in just the right way. Of course this is nonsense, and humans find all kinds of reasons to do bad things that aren't sourced in the absence of basic needs. Look at rape, for example, or acts of jealously, or mental illness, or even just basic assertions of dominance and power. To think that these things are caused by "capitalism" or some other thing external to humans is to ignore the varieties of life across the long span of human history.

[Anonymous No.16604683]

>>16602606
Sandel’s critique of Nozick in pic related. He also absolutely btfo’s modern liberalism in this work.

Against anarchism, just read a bit in Hobbes, desu. Civil freedom is superior to natural freedom.

[Anonymous No.16604705]

>>16603306
>we
libleft had nothing to with either of those, actually

[Anonymous No.16604868]

[Anonymous No.16604931]

>>16602606
Anarcho-capitalism is a fucking meme dude. They think there shouldn‘t be taxes, and that means no military--no military means that there will be militia groups fighting for dominance, which will lead to more violence and more property right violatons, thus making their belief self-defeating.

[Anonymous No.16604990]

>>16604931
>no military means that there will be militia groups fighting for dominance
Possibly if you consider the whole population of some current shithole state made of descendants of former peasants and serfs who don't know any better. We will rather create an ancap enclave of people who despise this master-slave mentality first.

[Anonymous No.16605043]

>>16604990
Pfft, good luck with that. People will begin getting at each other's throats and violating each other's rights eventually; why do you think the state came to be in the first place?

[Anonymous No.16605060]

>>16604931
>what is polycentric law
>what are paramilitaries
>what are private security firms
>what are cooperatives
>what are gated communities

[Anonymous No.16605081]

>>16604990
Congrats in 200 years you'll be right back at feudalism

[Anonymous No.16605093]

>>16605043
>why do you think the state came to be in the first place?
What I think about this is of little importance since we don't really *know* this and we can only guess, but anyways we have quite a lot of freedom in shaping our socio-political systems and we are not compelled to repeat any former - and obsolete - solutions, like feudalism or slavery.

[Anonymous No.16605231]

>>16602606
Literally everything except basic capitalism.

[Anonymous No.16605238]

>>16602622
Anarcho-primitivist is the only honest anarcho-, people should give it more credit.

[Anonymous No.16605278]

>>16604588
Why can AnCaps only think about how they can murder their neighbor next door?

[Anonymous No.16605297]

>>16605278
See OP, they only have strawmans (and prophesies) against us.

[Anonymous No.16605306]

>>16604683
>Against anarchism, just read a bit in Hobbes, desu. Civil freedom is superior to natural freedom.
cringe

[Anonymous No.16605333]

>>16602606
Read this. You most certainly don't need a book.
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2014/08/a-day-in-rothbardian-anarcho-capitalist.html?m=1

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16605370]

>whole books that refute dry water!

[Anonymous No.16605400]

>>16605060
Yeah, yeah. Everyone can have their own militia groups and communities, and they can also cooperate with each other for the greater good. It's great if we assume that everyone will respect the so-called NAP, but history has shown us countless times that there will always be conflicts regardless of previous agreements and alliances.

You would need everyone to be morally-geared towards the greater good so that the values are upheld by every member of society, and that's the world works. Ironically, anarcho-capitalists make the same mistake communists do.

[Anonymous No.16605405]

>>16605400
that's not how the world works* in the second paragraph

[Anonymous No.16605412]

>>16605060
>providing a list of entities that you would oppressed by
Lmao ancap delusion

[Anonymous No.16605414]

>>16605333
>oh no not the children

[Anonymous No.16605415]

>>16605306
got em

[Anonymous No.16605416]

>>16605333
>First, would an anarcho-capitalist society have a good system of transportation, sanitation, drainage, water, and electricity infrastructure, if built from nothing?
Nice try, they were obviously invented and introduced by private entities (if feudal), and obviously they might have been somewhat expensive centuries ago (duh). For comparison in the Communist Bloc municipal water supplied by the state was NOT safe to drink without boiling.

[Anonymous No.16605438]

>>16605416
Could have read the next paragraph
>The Rothbardians claim that the private sector would build all such infrastructure, but historical instances where these things are left to the private sector suggest that such a system has definite disadvantages: not enough provision of such goods/services, and often privatised services which are too expensive for many people to afford (e.g., health care).
>For comparison in the Communist Bloc municipal water supplied by the state was NOT safe to drink without boiling.
Yikes and you believe that in your ancap utopia with absolutely no environmental regulations you'll have clean drinking water?
>>16605414
Pedo

[Anonymous No.16605465]

>>16605438
>Could have read the next paragraph
You should have read my response in full as I addressed this point (dink cost)
>clean drinking water
It would be clean because suppliers could be sued if it's not.

[Anonymous No.16605466]

>>16605370
found where you live by the way. going to drive over and beat the fucking shit out of you.

[Anonymous No.16605500]

>>16605465
>You should have read my response in full as I addressed this point (dink cost)
When you claimed that they were introduced by private entities? For the sake of simplicity, let's assume you're correct. Notwithstanding, they were too expensive to use and were perfected and made accessible by public entities.
>because suppliers could be sued if it's not.
In corrupt private courts with no way to enforce their decisions?

[Anonymous No.16605514]

>>16605438
>literally oh no not the children again

[Anonymous No.16605544]

>>16605514
>just let children took away in conditions similar to those that Marx wrote about in horror during the 1850s

[Anonymous No.16605550]

>>16605500
>In corrupt private courts with no way to enforce their decisions?
read the myth of rule of law by hasnas

[Anonymous No.16605558]

>>16605544
>oh no not the children yet again

[Anonymous No.16605566]

>>16602606
Though he does not talk directly about the subject, Foucault’s analysis of power might help you understand why it’s a shitty idea.

[Anonymous No.16605582]

>>16605500
I said that new inventions are always expensive at the beginning and it's market competition and not regulations that make them more aboundant and accesible.
>In corrupt private courts with no way to enforce their decisions?
We will have competing judges who care for their reputation and can lose customers if they turn out biased. Even today companies abide by decisions of arbitral tribunals even with their relatively weak enforcement power.

[Anonymous No.16605592]

Unironically John Locke

[Anonymous No.16605607]

>>16602606

Read anything about Trade:

Michael Hudson
Ha Joon Chang
Ian Fleming
Erik Reinert
Henry Carey
Friedrich List
Werner Sombart
Peshine Smith
Raul Prebisch

Read any developmentalist economics

[Anonymous No.16605633]

Unironically watch Capitalism: A Love Story by Michael Moore.

[Anonymous No.16605656]

>>16605550
Don't think his argument is very well recieved amongst legal philosophers.
>>16605582
>and it's market competition and not regulations that make them more aboundant and accesible.
No. The market just keeps them expensive. This is well observed in history.
>We will have competing judges who care for their reputation and can lose customers if they turn out biased.
Corporations get to choose their judges. Yikes. I wonder how that would turn out.

[Anonymous No.16605658]

>>16602606
Anarcho-Capitalism is a self defeating ideology which would only lead to an authoritarian society, as one "company" could destroy all its competition and control the entire "free market" with virtually nothing impeding it. Imagine that the only place to get work would be in the government, imagine the only place where you would be able to buy food was through a government institution, etc. Replace the word government with company and you have the logical conclusion of anarcho-capitalism.

[Anonymous No.16605688]

>>16605658
all political ideologies are self-defeating if you follow them to their conclusion

[Anonymous No.16605695]

>>16605688
monarchism

[Anonymous No.16605709]

>>16605656
>Corporations get to choose their judges. Yikes. I wonder how that would turn out
You don't sign a contract if you don't agree on the judicial procedure.
>The market just keeps them expensive. This is well observed in history.
Yikes.
The definition of a market price is that it's the price with maximum volume. Corporations do buy state regulations to keep prices high though.

[Anonymous No.16605723]

>>16605709
>You don't sign a contract if you don't agree on the judicial procedure.
So there's no rule of law?
>Corporations do buy state regulations to keep prices high though.
Just imagine no state. We'd have monopolies setting prices.

[Anonymous No.16605834]

>>16605060
This works only if someone cares about market efficiency or maximizing utility. Most ancaps don't but instead strictly believe in the NAP. Good point to bring up for normal people tho.
>>16602886
>capitalism leads to a single all powerful corporate monopoly
Not really. You only get a *true* monopoly, as in literally one firm in a given industry, if the government enforces it.
>>16602638
>>16605060
How do small businesses prevent bigger ones from using their larger capital to out compete them using guns instead of competing with them by creating a better product? What ancaps want sounds like a gang telling you to pay them a "tax" if you want to do business an area in their sector, backed by their larger miltia force. Guess ancapism really is self defeating.
>>16604683
>Civil freedom is superior to natural freedom.
Uuuh, based department? I have to make a report.

[Anonymous No.16606062]

>>16602638
Can you expand? I sort of get what you mean but like specific examples and cases.

[Anonymous No.16606284]

>>16605656
>Don't think his argument is very well recieved amongst legal philosophers.
Why would this matter in the slightest?

[Anonymous No.16607040]

>>16605466
Based

[Anonymous No.16608166]

>>16602606
you don't need to read books against Anarcho-capitalism

just a few poorly formatted blogposts will probably do fine;

https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/12/why-i-am-not-libertarian/

https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/07/16/reactionary-property/

https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/10/27/conceptualizing-capitalism/

https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/12/11/spontaneous-order-does-not-exist/

https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/11/07/locke-versus-filmer-or-why-you-are-all-communists/

https://sympoiesis.net/contra-libertarians-i/
https://sympoiesis.net/contra-libertarians-ii/
https://sympoiesis.net/contra-libertarians-iii/
https://sympoiesis.net/contra-libertarians-iv/

[Anonymous No.16608174]

>>16602606
Not exactly built around critquing it but cyberpunk genre itself can be a good reference to fiction.
Communist works should also give insight poking at the flaws of capitalism

[Anonymous No.16608641]

Someone explain externalities to me please, I don't know shit about economics.

[Anonymous No.16608666]

>>16605238
It's ironic how anprims are the most memed when they
are the only anarchists who question all the problems
with modern society and also answer a possible solution

[Anonymous No.16608758]

>>16602606
It's not a book but any "ancap society" within ancap would never refer to ancap by definition unless ancap used force making it not ancap.
I really think you should argue against it yourself. Just get in debates like on discord politics server. It's pretty easy

[Anonymous No.16608765]

>>16608641
https://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/file/coase-problem.pdf

[Anonymous No.16608797]

>>16603293
Based and state-mandated duckramppilled

[Anonymous No.16609049]

[Anonymous No.16609205]

>>16606062
My familiarity with the subject stems more from public choice theory and macro-econ i read some years ago. I (shamefully) actually haven't read any outright ancap works of political philosophy, but from some of the libertarian stuff i've read i imagine ancaps simply take these arguments to their logical conclusion. So, uh, take it all with a grain of salt. I'm not sure how relevant this is to actual ancap claims.
In a perfect market, every exchange is pareto optimal—that is, there is no exchange where both parties are not at their maximum marginal utility. There cannot be any exchange that reduces the marginal utility of anyone. This is because of the premises of the perfect market: actors are perfectly rational, taken to mean that they will always make decisions in the pursuit of maximising their utility; actors are perfectly knowledgeable, so they know all the relevant information regarding the respective value and bargaining position of each exchange; there no externalities, so all exchanges will only effect the individuals it involves, no costs will be incurred or passed onto third parties; all exchanges are voluntary, so no individual will be forced to make an exchange if they don't want to. Taken together, this results in an actor who will only make exchanges which objectively maximize their utility, and will never be affected by other's exchanges (directly, anyway). Further, it is a system where there is no free-riding or rent-seeking. So, necessarily, every exchange is pareto optimal because no rational actor would voluntarily conduct an exchange that was detrimental to them. This is how the free market is thought to be able to perfectly regulate behaviour in a peaceful and universally beneficial way. Now clearly there is no such thing as the perfect market as none of these conditions are likely to ever be met. When these aren't met, there occurs what is termed market failure: when market mechanisms do not produce pareto optimailty. This typically occurs when there are asymmetries in information, monopoly and monopsony pricing, externalities, and public goods. These prevent pareto optimal transactions from being reached, which undermines claims that under voluntary exchanges everyone is better off. It is typically held that governments are the solution to preventing/minimising market failure.
Externalities occur when there is a difference in the marginal social cost and the marginal private cost. A perfect example of an externality would be a chemical factory paying someone to dump their waste into a river. For the factory and the dumper this is an extremely cost efficient method of waste disposal as the chemicals are washed downstream and have no impact on either party. So for the factory and the dumper, there are almost no costs. However, the costs here don't simply disappear. Rather, they are transferred to a third-party—someone who isn't party to the transaction—down-stream.

[Anonymous No.16609207]

>>16609205
Hence the marginal private costs are incredibly low while the marginal social costs are incredibly high. Externalites are typically dealt with by artificially increasing the opportunity cost of the action through taxes or fines or other legal avenues until it is higher than the marginal benefit gained from shifting the costs onto others. Now, if it was a simple case of one producer impacting a great many people, maybe this could be solved without the need for regulation (eg, consumers will stop buying that factories product). However a real problem occurs in cases where a large number of producers impact a large group of third-parties in a minor degree. A perfect example of this would be factories producing smog in cities. Each individual factory produces a small amount of the total air pollution, and each third party is only minorly effected. On the more extreme end you have macro-problems like the depletion of fisheries and global pollution causing climate change and so on—here the costs of each action is extremely negligible, but the accumulative impact of many million actions have far-reaching and disastrous consequences. In both of these cases it is very difficult for individuals through market mechanisms to raise the opportunity cost of committing those actions to the point of offsetting the benefits. In the case of the factories and the smog, there is no way to effectively target the factories as their individual contributions cannot be isolated, and the individual cost to each third-party is so small that coordinated responses are unlikely. With the macro-scale problems it is practically impossible to fix.
So a good way of arguing against Anarcho-capitalism on their own terms is the pick up on these market failures. It's where a lot of the memes come from, and it's also (i imagine) where defenders spend a lot of their effort. For example, the market failure of asymmetrical information is typically comes in the form of the seller having disproportionate information to the buyer. So a drug company may sell medicine which has side-effects they do not disclose or aren't as efficacious as they claim, and it is very difficult for the buyer in that interaction to have knowledge of these things. So the government intervention here is through supervisory institutions that set and uphold standards while forcing companies to disclose certain information (eg, the FDA). The Ancap response (i imagine) would be to suggest that a private company could somehow fill the same role. Which is a similar argument they make for public good like private roads and so on. The most difficult market failures to prevent i imagine would be monopoly/monopsony pricing and externalities. But i'm sure ancaps have more or less satisfying answers for all of these.
There are also many ways to attack the moral claims that market-oriented thinkers make about perfect justice of voluntary action. I have a post i could dig up about Nozick on that if you want.

[Anonymous No.16609220]

>>16602606
>I've been watching youtube videos

[Anonymous No.16609368]

>>16605400
>It's great if we assume that everyone will respect the so-called NAP, but history has shown us countless times that there will always be conflicts regardless of previous agreements and alliances.
Which invalidates what part of what I said exactly? Ancaps don't make the claim that any solution that replaces the state would do away with violence and theft. It's almost a divine law that "immoral" activity will exist in some shape or form. The claim anarcho-capitalists make isn't even remotely related, though some would contend that the state's monopoly on violence is directly contributive to crime rates, and so its replacement with presumably more efficient market-based solutions (like the ones I listed) would result in comparatively less crime.

For that matter, you can make the argument you just made regarding just about any political theory that prescribes some sort of behavioral code to be enforced by threat of force. The only real political 'system' that circumvents this critique is complete and utter anarchy, which by its being beyond all legal constructions and social mores is actually closer to the concurrent state of things, even as there's a conceptualized state present (see Stirner). It's of the essence that the state and its peripheral constructions like morality and law and so on is superimposed through socialization, and that these can be spotted as part of the conceptual 'state', so your argument doesn't hold water in any case.

What anarcho-capitalism has going for it is that it strips away most of the 'fluff' of legality and "natural right", and sets out some basic conditions under which a market economy would presumably flourish. The arguments for private property, and so on aren't primarily made as normative moralizations, but as pragmatic values to be upheld because they work. You can disagree whether austrian economics and praxeology make for the efficient solutions ancaps hold them to be, but as I said, that's a different debate altogether.

[Anonymous No.16609393]

>>16609205
>But i'm sure ancaps have more or less satisfying answers for all of these.
The externalities argument is dubious and can be answered with the idea that if there are negative externalities as a result of some enterprise there's also social incentive to create a solution for the issue. An unfettered market economy may or may not be able to deal with most negative externalities as a result of the social end of things becoming profitable concerns after the dissolution of the state, eg. gated communities banding together into companies in an effort to raise the profit incentives for fixing a specific issue. An ancap might contend that the invisible hand of the market is really no different than how the state has to reissue tax spending plans in accordance with the claims of the population.

[SAGE No.16609554]

>>16602614
fpbp

[Anonymous No.16609607]

>>16609049
Yikes.
I have never cringed more in my life.